As of the day I'm writing this, Friday, April 4, 2008EV, there've been 4,824 downloads of Volume I of my "Piano Illiterature" & 48 downloads of Volume II. 1% of the downloads for Volume I. Volume I has notes, Volume II doesn't. Maybe that makes the difference. Maybe Volume II is too 'avant-garde'. Dunno. I hereby will add at least some minimal notes for II & see if the downloads increase. Strangely, even w/ that quantity of downloads there's not a single rating or review.

"Harps & Angles Quartet 2 Retake" - March 25, 2003 - 7:08
- prepared "Harps & Angles" installation piano harp tables & percussion:
Elis Springer, Who is like God? (Pestel), Hyla Willis
- unprepared "Harps & Angles" installation piano harp tables & feedback:
Who is like God? (Tolson) [aka: tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE]

For the 2003 Pittsburgh Biennial, Michael Pestel & I created an elaborate installation at the PCA (Pittsburgh Center for the Arts) entitled "Harps & Angles". Photographs of this in use can be seen on Michael's website @: http://www.michaelpestel.com/projects/harps/index.html.
We gave 4 public quartet performances on this installation as part of the Biennial. In my bk entitled "A Mere Outline.." I describe all 4. See http://www.fyi.net/~anon/MereOutline2003.html for more info. Below is a description of the 1st 2 excerpted from there:

328. Harps & Angles Quartet #1
- Pittsburgh Center for the Arts, Pittsburgh, us@
- Thursday, March 20, 2003, 7:00 - 7:30PM
- "Harps & Angles" is an installation credited to "Who is like God?s" & made for the Pittsburgh Biennial. Michael Pestel (see 199, 200, 203, 206, 242, 243, 245, 246, 247, 273, & 312) told me that he was planning to make an installation using piano harps from upright pianos turned into tabletops. He proposed that I be part of a series of performances using these harps. Thinking about this, I proposed that surveillance cameras be mounted over the harp table tops & that the images from these be superimposed over each other & projected into a pool of water which would reflect the projection. I further proposed that each of the harps be miked & that their sound be amplified thru speakers in the pool so that the water would ripple as response to the sound which would then cause the projection reflection to be altered by the ripples. Thusly, the sound generated by the harps would effect their own projected image & make an integrated result. I eventually proposed that this be called "Harps & Angles" as a reference to the piano harps & the camera angles as well as a joking reference to the common image of "angels & harps".
Michael Pestel proposed that instead of calling myself "tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE", as I ordinarily would, that we make a name that refers to both of our given 1st names being "Michael". Since the meaning of Michael is sometimes said to be "Who is like God?", I proposed furthering the joking religious reference of the title by calling ourselves "Who is like God?s" as a sort of plural Michael that gave me a reason for using the unusual linguistic arrangement of punctuation within a word. Of course, I also preferred this because Michael is the only name I know of that's sometimes said to be a question.
In the resultant installation, the tables are arranged in a straight line slightly over 2 feet apart with the superimposition projection visible on the wall in front of where players would typically stand as well as projected into the water table placed in the corner of the room to the right of this. The water table was made to be approximately the same size as the piano harp tables. Pittsburgh electronic music composer & sound installation maker Jeremy Boyle gave us substantial advice on how to waterproof & place the speakers. Because of brightness in surrounding rooms, the reflection from the water table surface is too washed out. Given that this water table was an experiment, we discovered that it didn't work very well except when feedback was created. Bass feedback generated patterns on the surface of the water that Michael & I refer to as something like "Islamic tiles". I find these intricate geometrical patterns on the water completely fascinating. Michael placed weighted springs on these compass-point-placed speakers, which are mounted on the bottom of the table with their waterproofed surfaces exposed to the water, & a shell in the middle. The springs help conduct the sound to the surface & the placement of the shell can change the shape of the patterns. We discovered that many factors effect the substantialness of the patterns - such as how many people are standing on the floor around the table. Too many people apparently tend to dampen the conduction of the feedback thru the floorboards & to lessen or completely obliterate the patterns.
For this opening to the Biennial participants & their friends, our premier quartet consisted of Who is like God?s augmented by Steve Boyle & James Knopf. Given that this was an opening, there was much talking & milling about by the attendees & I found that the players reacted to this by being louder & 'noisier' than we might have been otherwise in an attempt to have more presence than the socializing crowd. We began by removing black coverings from the piano harp tables so that they & their projections were revealed. We then moved our hands into the middle, higher, & lower regions in an awkward & largely unsuccessful attempt at superimposed synchrocity. This quickly turned into loud & constant playing all at once that involved way too little paying attention to each other for my preferences. Michael climbed on top of his piano table & I simulated giving him a back massage by manipulating the strings on the same area of my piano table so that in the superimposition the 2 were combined. Towards the end, the feedback was brought into play. At the end, wind-up toys of a horseback rider & of penguins were set loose on the strings & the quartet walked away.
Before we ended, however, a formally dressed drunk woman from the audience, apparently perceiving this a "free-for-all" in which anyone could participate by beating somewhat senselessly on the harps, came up to the table that James had been playing on (& which he'd left so he could play on the same table as someone else) & took the largest available gong mallet & proceeded to hit the piano harp seemingly as hard as she could. This opened the floodgates to more audience participation & the audience swarmed over the piano harps as a seque to the original quartet leaving. Given that this installation is intended to be interactive & that our playing it was intended to inaugurate it so that the audience would then follow us, that would've been fine - except that the audience didn't seem to understand that we were doing something other than just attacking the surfaces to relieve of aggressions or some such. I was substantially disappointed both by the quartet's lack of paying attention to each other & to the audience's apparent insensitivity. Nonetheless, the audience seemed to love it & I was repeatedly told that it was "great". An audience member later broke a string & we learned to immediately remove the piano tuning handles after playing before the attendees could torque the strings too hard.

329. Harps & Angles Quartet #2
- Pittsburgh Center for the Arts, Pittsburgh, us@
- Friday, March 21, 2003, 6:40 - 7:05PM
- This was the 2nd of 5 planned performances in this installation. For a detailed introduction read the preceeding entry (#324). For this, the quartet consisted of the usual "Who is like God?s" duo (myself & Michael Pestel (see 199, 200, 203, 206, 242, 243, 245, 246, 247, 273, 312, & 324)) + Elise Springer & Hyla Willis. Given the problems of the 1st quartet from the night before, we rehearsed this a bit so that there'd be more sensitivity between players. We began by simultaneously pulling off the covering black clothes from the piano harp table tops. Then Elise placed her hands in the middle, the upper register area, & the lower register area - followed by the other 3 players doing the same (one at a time) except that we ended by scraping the lowest string. Then we all 4 tried to do the same procedure simultaneously so that our hands would overlap in the projected image. In the improvisation that followed we cued solo w/ backing vamp sections by tossing a screw onto the piano table of the selected soloist. Players dropped out to facilitate duos & trios by standing back from their tables. 6 approaches to sounding the harps were chosen in advance as ones that we would try to collectively use in occasional unison: striking with mallets, plucking, strumming, sounding while tuning, activating by dropping objects onto the harp(s), & scraping. If someone were to use these techniques & someone else were to notice then the noticing person was to consider following suit to try to instigate everyone's doing so. I started the feedback & Michael, once again, climbed on his harp while the rest of us mimed massaging, tickling, & scratching him. We ended with the wind-up penguin toys walking on the strings while we walked away.
This time the audience refrained from attacking the piano harps until after we were done. HOWEVER, they were even MORE FEROCIOUS in doing so than they had been the previous night! With as many as maybe 10 people playing the harps at once they proceeded to hit the harps as hard as they could while they screamed. One guy used a rolling pin that had been used in the uncert as a large slide to vehemently hit the wood of the piano harp until Michael asked him to stop. The total lack of dynamic variety & subtlety in the audience's attack on the harps was truly astonishing. It was like watching a pack of monsters unleashed. They seemed to enjoy themselves immensely.

Since Michael & I weren't completely satisfied w/ these 1st 2 performances we decided to have a recording session using the 2nd quartet. Unfortunately, this quartet was unable to get together at the same time for more than 7:08 b/c of conflicting schedules. Hence the shortness of this recording.

"Interpretive Duncing" - 1997-98/2000/2003 - 37:48
- DX27S synthesizer, ASR-X-PRO sampler, K1m synthesizer, Mirage sampler, MIDI-patcher, multi-verb, mixer/sampler, Roland pitch-to-MIDI converter, Breakaway Vocalizer 1000 pitch-to-MIDI converter, "A Year of Sundays (computer edit)" CD: tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE
- Thanks to Warren Burt for 2000 pitch-to-MIDI assistance

Below are the notes regarding this piece that introduce the score to the related "Reductionism #1". The version of the notes presented here is missing score samples.

"Reductionism [#1] (A Year of Sundays with Mono)"

& "Interpretive Duncing
(the sum of multiple "Reductionisms")"

- tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE

From early 1997 to early 1998 some collaborators of mine & I organized 12 improvisatory "Uncerts" (uncertainty concerts) in places meant to influence the results: "CircumSubstantial Playings". These were meant to be all on the same sunday of each mnth (but it didn't quite work out that way).
One of the collaborators, Michael Johnsen, recorded a session near the explosives demolition of a large building on Wood Street in downtown Pittsburgh. Parts of an event that I organized called the Anonymous Family Reunion were also included in this series.
The groupings were called "Volunteers Collective"s wch tied it all in to an ongoing collaborative project started by John Berndt in Baltimore in 1989. I stopped my participation in the VC w/ the end of the "Yr of Sundays" series because I felt that John had somewhat mediocritized the Volunteers Collective projects that he organized & I no longer wanted to be associated w/ them.
I published a "Yr of Sundays" tape wch has excerpts from all the Sundays sessions on the 1st side & a complex computer edit from the same sessions + 2 VC sessions that John organized on the 2nd side. This tape, or a CD version, shd accompany this score - as shd some relevant printed matter (as an addendum at the back).
Years later, this computer edit was then played into Warren Burt's Roland pitch-to-MIDI converter when etta cetera & I were visiting him in Melbourne, Australia. It 'translated' the material into a sequence of single pitches. It's not capable of 'translating' harmony. This sequence of pitches was turned into a MIDI file & then played back using a piano sound. This result constitutes the "Reductionism #1" recording that shd also accompany this score.
Hence, the "Yr of Sundays" was 'reduced' to a melody. Theoretically, there wd be no simultaneous pitches - & what wd seem like harmony wd be just quick succession. HOWEVER, the "Interpretive Duncing" of the various technical steps that the production of this piece/these pieces requires changes that slightly so that occasional chords do result. These chords are presumably the product of insufficient articulations by the notation program - wch might be able to be 'corrected' by changing program settings. Such details are unimportant, however, since the purpose of this project is simply to generate (almost) any score simply by 'flowing' materials thru a specific path.
As such, variations produced by "Interpretive Duncing" are not only 'permissable' but desirable. The 1st score to be generated by the MIDI file was done using Warren's version of Cakewalk software. I requested that the time signature be set to "15/32" to be absurd. In the majority of the innovative 'classical' music I like, the pieces are often very hard to perform because the parameters of the physically possible (for humans) is being stretched. The composer's intention, for me, is preferably more conceptual than physical but there is a somewhat inevitable athleticism involved in order to delve into ever-more complex expressive nuances.
Given that there's not really any metrical system to the "Reductionisms" or to "Interpretive Duncing" but that using time signatures is a standard part of conventional notation, I initially set the program to divide the product into measures of 15 32nds in order to produce an exaggeratedly difficult score to make it 'more classical' in the above-mentioned athletic sense. Of course, such divisions into measures serve to make section location easier since specific #ed measures can be referenced. In the 3rd (& 'final'?) version of the score presented here, I changed the time to 4/4 in the interest of removing unnecessary difficulties for the hypothetical performer.
Because this process of score generation is DELIBERATELY non-definitive, using the MIDI-file to produce a score will, probably produce an at least slightly (or drastically) different score every time. Prospective performers are encouraged to take the initiative of using the provided "Yr of Sundays (computer edit)" to create a MIDI-file w/ that can be used to make a new "Reductionism" to perform w/. As will be explained in greater detail later, this can then either be performed solo or as part of "Interpretive Duncing".
In order to give an idea of variables involved in this notation process, I give a brief comparative analysis of 2 measures each from the 3 versions of the "Reductionism [#1] (A Year of Sundays with Mono)" score so far. The 1st, as previously mentioned, made w/ the assistance of Warren Burt; the 2nd, only partially notated, w/ the assistance of Peter Reppert using his Encore software; & the 3rd, done by myself, using a version of Cakewalk that may be newer than the 1 Warren used.


[MISSING HERE: Measure 1 scored in 15/32 using Warren's Cakewalk]

With my very rudimentary understanding of conventional notation, it appears to me that there's a whole note rest in the treble clef above (equalling 32/32nds); &, in the bass clef, a dotted 8th rest + a dotted 16th rest + a 32nd note + 2 32nd rests + another dotted 16th rest = 6/32nds + 3/32nds + 1/32nd + 2/32nds + 3/32nds = 15/32. Assuming the whole rest to simply be meant as a rest for the duration of the measure rather than as a whole rest per se, I'll ignore that as a possible mistake. It then appears that the notation managed to produce a correct 15/32nds measure. So far, so good, but, why isn't it just notated as ending w/ a, eg, 16th rest followed by a dotted 16th? Why have the unnecessary 2 32nds?


[MISSING HERE: Measure 1 scored in 15/32 using Peter's Encore]

Here we have 3 dotted 16th rests + 2 32nd rests + another dotted 16th rest = 9/32nds + 2/32nds + 3/32nds = 14/32nds! - instead of 15/32. Perhaps the unusual signature was too much for the program or perhaps the program was used w/o sufficient tweaking. Another unknown, to me, is why the score was exclusively in the bass clef. Also, why not just have either a whole rest (as in Warren's treble clef) or, at least, the simpler quarter rest + 8th rest + dotted 16th rest? I wonder if there may not've been 'grace' notes so quick that they were too small to be notated but still there somehow as the missing 1/32nd's worth of invisible notes. Whatever the explanation, the opening note in the Cakewalk #1 score is absent here.


[MISSING HERE: Measure 1 scored in 4/4 using tENT's Cakewalk]

& here, again, a whole rest in the treble clef (4/4ths); &, in the bass clef, a quarter rest + a 16th rest + an 8th note + a triplet combining a quarter note w/ a 2 note chord consisting of a sharped quarter note paired w/ its natural held for longer than a quarter note by having a tie of a 16th note to a quarter note w/ another quarter note w/ a dotted 8th rest underneath the beginning of the triplet (the positioning of wch I'm unsure of how to interpret) = 4/16ths + 1/16th + 2/16ths + (hypothetically) 8/16ths + (hypothetically) 3/16ths = 18/16ths! - instead of 16/16ths = 4/4. Since this measure is over twice as long as the opening measures of the 2 15/32nd scores, it's no wonder that there are now FIVE pitches presented. The 1st pitch occurs here after a 10/32nds rest as opposed to after the 9/32nds rest in the 1st Cakewalk version & is the same pitch but for a different duration.



[MISSING HERE: Measure 16 scored in 15/32 using Warren's Cakewalk]

Measure 16 of the 2 15/32nd scores falls in approximately the same place as measure 8 of the 4/4 score (there're 10/32nds in the measure before the 4/4 measure wd begin). Here we have, in the treble clef, a dotted 16th rest + a 32nd rest + a triplet combining 3 16ths + a 32nd rest + a 32nd note + 3 32nd rests + another 32nd note + a last 32nd rest = 3/32nds + 1/32nd + 4/32nds + 7/32nds = 15/32nds; &, in the bass clef, a whole rest (32/32nds). Again, why these excessive rests? Why not an 8th rest at the beginning & a dotted 16th following the 1st 32nd note?
Given that the 1st note of this measure is the 1st note in this version of the score in the treble clef - & ignoring the erraticness of the actual lengths of the previous 15 measures, the 1st note here is the 1st treble note appearance in any of the 3 scores. In the Encore version, everything is notated in the bass clef - &, in the tENT Cakewalk version, the 1st treble note is the equivalent of approximately 9/32nds later than the 1st one here. Nonetheless, they are the same pitch & duration. Bravo!



[MISSING HERE: Measure 16 scored in 15/32 using Peter's Encore]

A dotted 16th rest + a 16th rest + 3 32nd rests + 1 16th rest = 3/32nds + 2/32nds + 3/32nds + 2/32nds = 10/32nds! - instead of 15/32nds. This analysis isn't meant to criticize either Encore, wch I've never used, or Peter's use of it! I'm merely exploring the potential provided by the available materials. As before, "invisible 'grace' notes" may account for the metrical irregularities.



[MISSING HERE: Measure 8 scored in 4/4 using tENT's Cakewalk]

Momentarily ignoring the 'irrelevance' of the 2 & 3 note chords, we have an 8th rest + 3 16th notes + an 8th note + 3 16th notes + 4 16th notes = 4/16ths + 3/16ths + 2/16ths + 3/16ths + 4/16ths = 16/16ths = 4/4. Fine. The 1st note of measure 8 in tENT's 4/4 Cakewalk version wd correspond to the 14th 32nd of measure 16 in Warren's & Peter's 15/32 versions. As previously noted, the treble notes appear (hypothetically) slightly earlier in Warren's version but the 1st notes are the same pitch & duration until a 32nd rest appears in Warren's version instead of the 8th note here, etc. As for the chords, they cd also be the result of speed detail limits of the software &/or its settings in this use. In other words, they may've been notated otherwise as 128th notes or some such!

In conclusion, to reiterate the point, these variables are perfectly acceptable. A definitive score wd go against my intentions. The score provided here is a springboard (more athleticism?) & not something to enslave the performer w/. The player is welcome to attempt to play the score as is, preferably giving it their best effort, OR to try to read the score while performing but to systematically NOT play it!
This can be done in an infinite amt of 'acceptable' ways. The basic idea is to read the score while playing & to either play the same pitches out-of-sync or to play different pitches rhythmically in-sync! A daunting challenge no doubt! But, keep in mind, that it's 'acceptable' to make mistakes. That way the player has to exercise their skill
in following scores but has to make choices about what to play.
Obvious suggestions are to: play the same notes as in the score but in different octaves than what the score has them at; play each measure with a new intervallic relationship - that is: play a measure (or a page) playing the pitches a major 2nd above what's notated, then play a minor 9th below what's notated for a measure/page, etc..; only play every 5th note - playing a chord using that note. You get the idea. Then, in performance, the player freely chooses between these & any other strategies. The result is a reaction to the score rather than servitude to it. Hostile interpreters might choose to only play 1 note (or none) as a reaction against my notational 'blasphemies' or my "Low Classical Usical" ideas in general. Alas, though, that wd be, IMO, a rather dull-witted response.



FINALLY, what this is leading up to is playing simultaneously with the provided "Interpretive Duncing" recording. If the "Reductionism #1" score is followed literally (certainly a challenge that wd be fun to hear met!), there wd be some sort of exact synchronicity between the live playing & the appearances of the "Reductionism #1" part in "Interpretive Duncing". The parts where #1 doesn't appear in the recording wd be bridged by their appearance in the live part. Another interpretive possibility wd be for the player to play the score literally during the bridges & in realization counterpoint in the overlap parts. The structure of "ID" in relation to "R1" is explained below.
"Reductionism #1"'s full title is: "Reductionism (A "Yr of Sundays" w/ Mono)" - ie: rendered (mostly) as monophonic rather than polyphonic. This is also a pun implying that the relative minimalism of the "Reductionisms" in relation to the original "Yr of Sundays" material is the result of the piece having mono(nucleosis) & of its, therefore, being 'low on energy'. The "reductionism" also refers to the reduction of the socially produced sessions to a mostly solo-produced derivative.
Of course, a partial reason for using the "Yr of Sundays" material for this purpose was to take dominantly very complex 'non-melodic' (& 'enviromental') material & to extract a 'melodic skeleton' from it. Additionally, I'm very interested in it formally because it IS a melody - AND one of the very few [mostly] monophonic 'piano' pieces in existence. I'm not sure what the others are but Cage's "Cheap Imitation" might be one & I'm sure (?) there must be more - but certainly not many.
"Interpretive Duncing" is, as its subtitle states, "(the sum of multiple "Reductionisms")". The title is yet-another-pun & is a take-off of "Interpretive Dancing" - wch is to dance what "Program Music" &/or, perhaps, "Tone Poems" are to (m)usic. The "dunces" that're doing the "interpreting" are the pitch-to-MIDI convertors & the
computer programs that create the resultant MIDI files & scores (& myself).

"Interpretive Duncing"'s in 34 parts:
1st minute of Reductionism 1
2nd minute of Reductionism 2
3rd minute of Reductionism 3
4th minute of Reductionism 4
5th minute of Reductionism 5 (take 1)
6th minute(s) of Reductionism 1 (left channel) & 2 (right channel)
7th minute(s) of Reductionism 1 (left channel) & 3 (right channel)
8th minute(s) of Reductionism 2 (left channel) & 3 (right channel)
9th minute(s) of Reductionism 3 (left channel) + 1 (middle) + 2 (right channel)
10th minute(s) of Reductionism 1 (middle) + Reductionism 4 (stereo)
11th minute(s) of Reductionism 2 (middle) + Reductionism 4 (stereo)
12th minute(s) of Reductionism 3 (middle) + Reductionism 4 (stereo)
13th minute(s) of Reductionism 1 (left channel) & 2 (right channel) + Reductionism 4 (stereo)
14th minute(s) of Reductionism 1 (left channel) & 3 (right channel) + Reductionism 4 (stereo)
15th minute(s) of Reductionism 2 (left channel) & 3 (right channel) + Reductionism 4 (stereo)
16th minute(s) of Reductionism 3 (left channel) + 1 (middle) + 2 (right channel) + Reductionism 4 (stereo)
17th to 22nd minute(s) of Reductionism 3 (left channel) + 1 (middle) + 2 (right channel) + Reductionism 5 (take 2)
23rd minute(s) of Reductionism 3 (left channel) + 1 (middle) + 2 (right channel) + Reductionism 4 (stereo)
24th minute(s) of Reductionism 2 (left channel) & 3 (right channel) + Reductionism 4 (stereo)
25th minute(s) of Reductionism 1 (left channel) & 3 (right channel) + Reductionism 4 (stereo)
26th minute(s) of Reductionism 1 (left channel) & 2 (right channel) + Reductionism 4 (stereo)
27th minute(s) of Reductionism 3 (middle) + Reductionism 4 (stereo)
28th minute(s) of Reductionism 2 (middle) + Reductionism 4 (stereo)
29th minute(s) of Reductionism 1 (middle) + Reductionism 4 (stereo)
30th minute(s) of Reductionism 3 (left channel) + 1 (middle) + 2 (right channel)
31st minute(s) of Reductionism 2 (left channel) & 3 (right channel)
32nd minute(s) of Reductionism 1 (left channel) & 3 (right channel)
33rd minute(s) of Reductionism 1 (left channel) & 2 (right channel)
34th minute of Reductionism 5 (take 2)
35th minute of Reductionism 4
36th minute of Reductionism 3
37th minute of Reductionism 2
last 15 seconds of Reductionism 1
last 30 seconds of Reductionism 3 (left channel) + 2 (right channel) + Reductionism 5 (take 2)



"Reductionism #1" uses a 'realistic' piano sound w/ a 'realistic' piano dynamic range.
"Reductionism #2" uses an electric piano sound & has no dynamic range.
"Reductionism #3" uses a specially adapted piano sample I made that has the notes divided into 6 dynamic ranges:
C2-F#2 & C#6-C7: loudest
G2-D3: soft
D#3-B3: loud
C4-A4: mid
A#4-F5: mid soft
F#5-C6: softest
In other words, whenever those notes are played they can ONLY be that dynamic.
They have no dynamic flexability.
The different piano sounds are used to contrast w/ each other.

All "Reductionisms" post #1 use my Breakaway pitch-to-MIDI converter wch may not be as sensitive as Warren's Roland. "Reductionism #4" uses samples taken from the "Yr of Sundays" computer edit. The 2 "Reductionism #5"s are the most complex & 'permit' the inclusion of "Yr of Sundays" extraneous material + the "Yr of Sundays" 'driver' itself.

- tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE
- December 12, 2003; Pittsburgh


"Harps & Angles Sampled 3" [ever so slightly sped-up] - April 14, 2003 - 16:57
- DX27S synthesizer, ASR-X-PRO sampler, multi-verb, mixer-sampler:
Who is like God? (Tolson) [aka: tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE]
- using samples from the March 25, 2003 "Harps & Angles" session

I recorded 61 samples (one for every key of my DX27S controller) from the session that constitutes track 1 here. This session was thereby turned into a multitude of new pieces as a result. This is the 3rd of at least 6 such versions.

"Cycling thru the Circle #05" - June 13, 2004 - 17:59
- Steinway grand piano: tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE

Recorded in the Andy Warhol Museum Theater with no audience as an experiment in integrating Circle of Fifths harmonic structure into more free-form improvising - mainly to test whether I cd even play in such a conventional way anymore - loud air-conditioning dominates the recording.
I'm by no means a 'great' pianist. Nonetheless, I play the piano from time-to-time & usually enjoy doing so. This playing is probably about as good as it got at the time. The piano was left in the theater after a concert & I took advantage of its being there to get some recording done. I might not've touched a piano for yrs at that point so given how out-of-practice I probably was I don't think this is THAT bad. These days I have a piano at home so I play more often. Whether I've gotten any better is debatable. Cecil Taylor & David Tudor I'm not.

plus-circle Add Review

comment

Reviews